JamieMaree you don't know what you are talking about do you?

The question was asked: why didn't he land at Learmonth which he appeared to be very close to when the problem occurred. Only he knows the answer. But time will tell if he was required to but didn't . If he wasn't required to, then it is his opinion vs 100,000 arm chair experts. Maybe that's why he needed the pax prayers.

Intetesting commentary from the Captain.

Can someone please tell me how many incidents this carrier needs to accrue before one has its rights to this country cancelled?

Did I say that? No, just like you, I expressed my opinion. And I stand by it!

JamieMaree, been a while since I've read anything about EDTO, but unless they were actually on an EDTO segment, then they don't have to comply with anything EDTO related, apart from obviously not commencing EDTO if something fails beforehand.

With Learmonth there, I'd imagine they weren't EDTO yet.

morno

Perhaps it's about time that Air Asia and Qantas got together to provide A330 airstairs at Learmonth?

Sort of what I was saying. Depends on airline rules and state rules. The airline I worked for, the sector was either Etops or non Etops. You couldn't break it into parts of the sector to apply the rules. I assume that Edto is the same as Etops.
For example: if you were flying Syd/Mel and you had an engine failure 5 mins before ETP, legally could you fly on to Mel, answer yes.
If you were flying Nadi/ Honolulu and assuming no other airports were available and you had an engine failure 5 mins before ETP could you legally fly on to HNL, answer no.
The former is non Etops rules and the latter is Etops rules. In the case of the former under the CAOs there were certain things that the PIC had to consider in making his decision. Under Etops he had fewer options.

I'm with you poppa Jo, regardless of any regs, EDTO, prayers etc etc, flying an aeroplane 400 odd miles instead of 100 odd, in that condition, is plain stupidity.

So be it. But can I ask again, did you actually have a look at this footage?

AirAsia flight returns to Perth due to 'technical issue', passenger says 'blade came off turbine' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

With that level of vibration there must have been serious damage to one of the engines and to shake the whole aircraft like that would take considerable force. Engine mountings will be taking a real sideways pounding. No question in my mind - very serious emergency and land as soon as possible at nearest available, NOT nearest convenient.

Or, to put it another way, it would be remarkable if an aircraft type that has been in service for nearly 25 years had only just suffered its first engine failure.

So to refer to it as "another A330 engine failure" tells us nothing.

Precisely.
Seeing that footage, nothing in my mind justifies turning 180 away from valid alternate at 165 nm and running 465 nm to maintenance base.

JamieMaree, EDTO does not require a diversion to the nearest adequate airport following a critical system failure.

I doubt anyone other than the operating crew know the specifics of their decision making ;)

It's a suitable airport and Airbus requires a landing ASAP. Compound that with the vibration issue and it's difficult to understand the thought process. Many of the passengers were probably terrified in addition to the technical issues.

WingNut60, that footage tells us nothing for sure. Then again, having driven on cobbled Belgian roads for many years past - without my car falling apart, I'm possibly immune to vibrations! :)

It gives a fair indication to me that the passengers were subjected to 1:50 (approx) of traumatising exposure when they could have been on the ground in 30 minutes.

Really? You know that for sure? That's a 25s video, no-one (here) knows whether that went on for 1, 10 or 110 minutes.

It's possible that the video was the immediate aftermath and that once secure the vibration was not as severe. We don't know, we weren't there. How about we credit the crew with the fact that the decision made to return to Perth was made with the full facts at their disposal at that time and was the best option of those they considered.

JamieMaree, you be talking cobblers, the CAPT is empowered to make the decision that they see fit in an emergency situation, irrespective of anything in the rule book. After the event those decisions will need to be justified...but at the time, the rule book is nothing more than a paper weight.

I was flying Holiday Airlines into Lake Tahoe. Decades ago. On short final, the pilot commanded full thrust, and, sitting on the left side just ahead of the engine (Number two, on the Electra), I looked out and saw the scariest thing I have ever seen. The entire engine and nacelle were wildly trying to leave the aircraft. The plane was shaking so bad I couldn't believe what I was looking at.

I asked the pilot on exiting what had happened. He was unconcerned, I suppose used to this behaviour. That was a bit before Whirl mode entered the vocabulary.

So. No criticism from me until a whole lot more is known about this flight.